Click here for: Financial Safety Rule #1
Or copy/paste this link into your browser:
http://onebornfreesfinancialsafetyreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/financial-safety-rule-1.html
Showing posts with label Investment Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Investment Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Sunday, December 2, 2007
A Bright Shiny Lesson in Government Theft: How the Feds Seized My Silver Dollars
A Bright Shiny Lesson in Government Theft:
How the Feds Seized My Silver Dollars - story here :
Comments: From where I stand this whole affair merely underscores the fact that it is somewhat dangerous to keep any assets in the US, at least if one keeps them all in one place. The whole thing is nothing more than a good old fashioned "shakedown" in my opinion.
Just one of those things that all governments do- simply because they can. Its a safe bet that this will never change- regardless of who runs the show, and even if you don't believe that, if money/investments that you cannot afford to lose are at stake,it is best to be prepared for the worst in case you are wrong.
No different than with any other investment, if this guy had held all of his silver investments within the US , it was naive to keep them all within place [i.e one holding company like Liberty silver] if he in fact did that.
There are other companies producing silver coins that were not raided - meaning that if he'd "spread it around " a little he would be losing only a small part of his silver investment as opposed to all of it.[again, assuming for the sake of argument that that's what he did] .
Also he could have kept some silver close at hand at a secret location known only to him [maybe he did, who knows?], to prevent a total loss.
And pursuing a case against the feds after the fact is probably a complete waste of time unless you have a lot of money to spend and powerful political connections, and could take years to resolve.
In the meanwhile he would still be out of his entire "investment", with absolutely no guarantee that he'd ever get his silver back or be compensated for the loss of investment profits or opportunity to sell and reinvest elsewhere, or even for his legal expenditures.
Better , for peace of mind, to attempt to avoid the situation from happening to you, ahead of time, through proper diversification and through [ideally] keeping important assets [i.e. investments you cannot afford to lose] outside of the US as far as possible.
How the Feds Seized My Silver Dollars - story here :
Comments: From where I stand this whole affair merely underscores the fact that it is somewhat dangerous to keep any assets in the US, at least if one keeps them all in one place. The whole thing is nothing more than a good old fashioned "shakedown" in my opinion.
Just one of those things that all governments do- simply because they can. Its a safe bet that this will never change- regardless of who runs the show, and even if you don't believe that, if money/investments that you cannot afford to lose are at stake,it is best to be prepared for the worst in case you are wrong.
No different than with any other investment, if this guy had held all of his silver investments within the US , it was naive to keep them all within place [i.e one holding company like Liberty silver] if he in fact did that.
There are other companies producing silver coins that were not raided - meaning that if he'd "spread it around " a little he would be losing only a small part of his silver investment as opposed to all of it.[again, assuming for the sake of argument that that's what he did] .
Also he could have kept some silver close at hand at a secret location known only to him [maybe he did, who knows?], to prevent a total loss.
And pursuing a case against the feds after the fact is probably a complete waste of time unless you have a lot of money to spend and powerful political connections, and could take years to resolve.
In the meanwhile he would still be out of his entire "investment", with absolutely no guarantee that he'd ever get his silver back or be compensated for the loss of investment profits or opportunity to sell and reinvest elsewhere, or even for his legal expenditures.
Better , for peace of mind, to attempt to avoid the situation from happening to you, ahead of time, through proper diversification and through [ideally] keeping important assets [i.e. investments you cannot afford to lose] outside of the US as far as possible.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Investing versus Speculating: Continued.
Investing versus Speculating: Continued.
To follow up on my blog of 15/01/06 "Investing versus Speculating" , here is a good example of financial "experts" who claim to be able to predict future economic events. This time, the subject is the current yield inversion in the bond markets, supposedly an indicator of a coming economic recession. [If you don't know what a yield curve is, just read the article, as one thing it does accomplish is to explain the idea reasonably clearly.]
Onebornfree's Commentary [followed by article]:
This is just another attempt to predict future economic events. Although yield inversions have a fair record, they are not foolproof predictors of recessions. A properly balanced long term savings plan which allows for losses occurring via unforseen recessions [ the event supposedly predicted via bond yield inversons], and other unforseeable economic events , although not 100% infallible, has to be a lot safer bet than simply speculating on a recession by throwing all of your savings into 90 day t-bills or AA+ rated corporate bonds[ or whatever] for the duration.
If you believe a recession is imminent [for whatever reason] place your bet with money you can afford to lose, if you have any.
The article, from the Sovereign Society's [ http://www.sovereignsociety.com/ ] free email advisory named "The A-Letter":
"Dangers of Bond Market Inversion in 2006
Today's guest comment is by Eric Roseman, a member of the Sovereign Society Council of Experts and editor of Renegade Investor.
Dear A-Letter Reader:
Over the last two years, investors have barely kept pace with inflation in benchmark intermediate term US Treasury bonds. After enjoying a massive rally since 2000, bond yields hit a 40 year low in 2003 at 3.3%. Despite thirteen Federal Reserve rate hikes since June 2004, bond yields have actually declined twenty basis points (0.20%), a worrisome signal Chairman Greenspan called a "conundrum" last fall. Yield curve inversion is a dangerous anomaly because it portends to economic weakness; the last three inversions all resulted in economic recessions.
Indeed, the bond market might be signaling big trouble for the US economy in 2006. The benchmark yield curve, or the difference between the two-year and ten-year Treasury yields, inverted in late December. An inverted yield curve occurs when short-term interest rates yield more than long-term interest rates. This phenomenon is a rarity in bond markets and typically indicates that bond investors think the US Federal Reserve is tightening the monetary screws too aggressively. If this is the case, then there is a good chance that the United States might suffer a recession later this year, especially if the yield curve stays inverted.
Historically, US Treasury bonds have positively correlated to common stocks. In market history, that relationship did sever during the Great Depression as stocks collapsed from 1929 to 1932 while bonds surged. Another break in that relationship developed in the post 1997 era as the Asian economic crisis and the near demise of hedge fund Long Term Capital Management drove investors into Treasury bonds en masse. In fact, since 1997, every time the stock market has corrected sharply, Treasury bonds have provided a negative correlation to equities. This means that T-bonds potentially serve as an ideal asset allocation tool amid market mayhem, protecting portfolios.
If yield curve inversion continues through the first quarter of 2006, investors would be well advised to purchase long-term Treasury bonds. An inverted yield curve spells big trouble for corporate earnings; an investment allocation to bonds would offset any stock market losses ahead of a major economic downturn or bear market.
Bonds did a great job protecting capital during the last bear market from 2000 to 2002. I expect this relationship will repeat itself this year if yield curve inversion continues.
ERIC N. ROSEMAN, Montreal, Quebec
Editor, Renegade Investor
E-mail: enr@qc.aibn.com
Web site: http://www.eas.ca" [end of article]
To follow up on my blog of 15/01/06 "Investing versus Speculating" , here is a good example of financial "experts" who claim to be able to predict future economic events. This time, the subject is the current yield inversion in the bond markets, supposedly an indicator of a coming economic recession. [If you don't know what a yield curve is, just read the article, as one thing it does accomplish is to explain the idea reasonably clearly.]
Onebornfree's Commentary [followed by article]:
This is just another attempt to predict future economic events. Although yield inversions have a fair record, they are not foolproof predictors of recessions. A properly balanced long term savings plan which allows for losses occurring via unforseen recessions [ the event supposedly predicted via bond yield inversons], and other unforseeable economic events , although not 100% infallible, has to be a lot safer bet than simply speculating on a recession by throwing all of your savings into 90 day t-bills or AA+ rated corporate bonds[ or whatever] for the duration.
If you believe a recession is imminent [for whatever reason] place your bet with money you can afford to lose, if you have any.
The article, from the Sovereign Society's [ http://www.sovereignsociety.com/ ] free email advisory named "The A-Letter":
"Dangers of Bond Market Inversion in 2006
Today's guest comment is by Eric Roseman, a member of the Sovereign Society Council of Experts and editor of Renegade Investor.
Dear A-Letter Reader:
Over the last two years, investors have barely kept pace with inflation in benchmark intermediate term US Treasury bonds. After enjoying a massive rally since 2000, bond yields hit a 40 year low in 2003 at 3.3%. Despite thirteen Federal Reserve rate hikes since June 2004, bond yields have actually declined twenty basis points (0.20%), a worrisome signal Chairman Greenspan called a "conundrum" last fall. Yield curve inversion is a dangerous anomaly because it portends to economic weakness; the last three inversions all resulted in economic recessions.
Indeed, the bond market might be signaling big trouble for the US economy in 2006. The benchmark yield curve, or the difference between the two-year and ten-year Treasury yields, inverted in late December. An inverted yield curve occurs when short-term interest rates yield more than long-term interest rates. This phenomenon is a rarity in bond markets and typically indicates that bond investors think the US Federal Reserve is tightening the monetary screws too aggressively. If this is the case, then there is a good chance that the United States might suffer a recession later this year, especially if the yield curve stays inverted.
Historically, US Treasury bonds have positively correlated to common stocks. In market history, that relationship did sever during the Great Depression as stocks collapsed from 1929 to 1932 while bonds surged. Another break in that relationship developed in the post 1997 era as the Asian economic crisis and the near demise of hedge fund Long Term Capital Management drove investors into Treasury bonds en masse. In fact, since 1997, every time the stock market has corrected sharply, Treasury bonds have provided a negative correlation to equities. This means that T-bonds potentially serve as an ideal asset allocation tool amid market mayhem, protecting portfolios.
If yield curve inversion continues through the first quarter of 2006, investors would be well advised to purchase long-term Treasury bonds. An inverted yield curve spells big trouble for corporate earnings; an investment allocation to bonds would offset any stock market losses ahead of a major economic downturn or bear market.
Bonds did a great job protecting capital during the last bear market from 2000 to 2002. I expect this relationship will repeat itself this year if yield curve inversion continues.
ERIC N. ROSEMAN, Montreal, Quebec
Editor, Renegade Investor
E-mail: enr@qc.aibn.com
Web site: http://www.eas.ca" [end of article]
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Investing versus Speculating- Financial Safety and You-part 1 of 2
Investing versus Speculating- Financial Safety and You
For most of us, the biggest threat to our own financial safety is not the Government, liberals or neo-cons, George Bush, or even the Chinese, but our own beliefs and superstitions about economics, investing and saving.
Danger- False Assumptions!
False assumptions about investments and markets, and yours or someone else's "infallible" ability to predict their future performance, will cause you a lot of financial pain, sooner or later.
Investment Fallacy Number One
As far as financial safety goes, the single most damaging belief that you can have is the one that says the future performance of markets is knowable and predictable.
Reality Bites
In reality, the only thing that we can predict about the future is this: that it will be entirely unpredictable.
What This Means For Your Long Term Savings
As the future of all markets is entirely unpredictable, what this unfortunately means is that if you "invest" money you cannot afford to lose [ie long term savings] in any particular market , or group of markets, based on the predictions of future events, regardless of whether they are predictions from a highly respected investment advisor or economist, a "hard money analyst", the government, the Federal Reserve, your Auntie Mable who is "good with stocks", a "technical analyst", a "fundamental analyst", a tea-leaf reader or "Uncle Tom Cobley and all", you are not investing, but speculating [gambling], with money that you cannot afford to lose [i.e. your long term savings.]
Not that there is anything wrong with speculating [gambling]- the problem is that for most of us, when we believe we are investing for our future we are actually taking dangerous speculative risks, simply because we assume that "financial experts etc." can indeed predict the future performance of markets.
Investment Sanity- 4 Steps
The First Step
The first step towards investment sanity simply involves humility, a humility that leads to your own admission of your own inability to regularly predict the future performance of any market.
The Second Step
The second step involves an admission that no-one else can predict the future performance of any market either - that all of the so-called experts are just as stupid/blind as the rest of us !
The Third Step
The third step is to start thinking seriously about how to construct a long term savings plan that does not rely on _anyone's_ supposed ability to predict future economic events.
The Fourth Step
Review the information at my website under financial safety [www.onebornfree.com] then get in contact with me at: myquestions@onebornfree.com
For most of us, the biggest threat to our own financial safety is not the Government, liberals or neo-cons, George Bush, or even the Chinese, but our own beliefs and superstitions about economics, investing and saving.
Danger- False Assumptions!
False assumptions about investments and markets, and yours or someone else's "infallible" ability to predict their future performance, will cause you a lot of financial pain, sooner or later.
Investment Fallacy Number One
As far as financial safety goes, the single most damaging belief that you can have is the one that says the future performance of markets is knowable and predictable.
Reality Bites
In reality, the only thing that we can predict about the future is this: that it will be entirely unpredictable.
What This Means For Your Long Term Savings
As the future of all markets is entirely unpredictable, what this unfortunately means is that if you "invest" money you cannot afford to lose [ie long term savings] in any particular market , or group of markets, based on the predictions of future events, regardless of whether they are predictions from a highly respected investment advisor or economist, a "hard money analyst", the government, the Federal Reserve, your Auntie Mable who is "good with stocks", a "technical analyst", a "fundamental analyst", a tea-leaf reader or "Uncle Tom Cobley and all", you are not investing, but speculating [gambling], with money that you cannot afford to lose [i.e. your long term savings.]
Not that there is anything wrong with speculating [gambling]- the problem is that for most of us, when we believe we are investing for our future we are actually taking dangerous speculative risks, simply because we assume that "financial experts etc." can indeed predict the future performance of markets.
Investment Sanity- 4 Steps
The First Step
The first step towards investment sanity simply involves humility, a humility that leads to your own admission of your own inability to regularly predict the future performance of any market.
The Second Step
The second step involves an admission that no-one else can predict the future performance of any market either - that all of the so-called experts are just as stupid/blind as the rest of us !
The Third Step
The third step is to start thinking seriously about how to construct a long term savings plan that does not rely on _anyone's_ supposed ability to predict future economic events.
The Fourth Step
Review the information at my website under financial safety [www.onebornfree.com] then get in contact with me at: myquestions@onebornfree.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)